If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

Could you check this letter, please?

Write a letter to the newspaper saying whether you agree or disagree with David Wallace's opinion and why, and saying what you believe should happen in the future.
Dear Editor
Many recent letter writers have called for the rapid expansion of renewable energy. I agree that the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming and climate change and needs to be phased out. But renewable energy sources like solar and wind power will never provide enough energy to allow us to reduce our dependence on coal and oil or enable developing countries to expand their industries. Only nuclear power can do this.
David Wallace
Melbourne, Australia

Write your letter in 300-350 words.

Dear Editor
I am writing in response to Mr. David Wallaceís letter posted in the last edition of the newspaper. According to Mr. Wallace nuclear power is the only source of energy that we should rely on in the future and the best solution for developing countries. I strongly disagree with such conviction.
Mr Wallace seems to be very concerned about developing countries and their ability to expand their industry. I do not think that nuclear power is the right path for them though.
My major concern about nuclear power are the safety issues. Plants that provide nuclear power seem to be relatively safe, and thatís what its proponents are trying to convince us to. That might be true to some extent, however, the reality shows that nuclear power plants constitute extreme danger to people and environment in case of a random event like a disaster. The Chernobyl case is most relevant example here. At the moment, even highly developed countries, in which nuclear power is a major source of energy, are considering withdrawing from it in the future. What seemed a golden mean in terms of energy a few decades ago now is considered to be something unwanted.
I also do not agree that burning coal is a major cause of global warming and something that should be completely abandoned. This is just a hoax made up by environmentalists. If fossil fuels is what developing countries have to depend on for the time being, thatís fine. The countries which are already highly developed have exploited their natural resources for a long time in order to reach such a level of welfare, why the others shouldnít do it?
Countries which are considered welfare states should continue to develop alternative sources of energy. Solar and wind power have already proven to be a success. I believe the whole world should go in this direction for the common well-being of our planet. Letís give the poorer countries a time to develop first without implementing nuclear power programme. They might regret it later.
Thomas Dunn